Skip to main content
 
About us
Search

Regulations on FDWs

Foreign manpower
  • Shin Min Daily News (01 April 2012) : Regulations on FDWs
  • Shin Min Daily News (26 March 2012): Employers should also be protected

Regulations on FDWs
- Shin Min Daily News, 01 April 2012

We refer to Jin Longzi’s letter on weekly rest day requirement for foreign domestic workers (FDWs (SMDN, 26 Mar).

Since January 2010, MOM has already removed employers’ liability if the FDW breaches Work Permit conditions that relate to her own behaviour. MOM does not forfeit employers’ security bonds if the FDW violates her own Work Permit conditions, for instance if she moonlights or gets pregnant. In reality, MOM forfeits very few security bonds each year. We are currently reviewing the employers’ obligations for medical and repatriation costs for exceptional circumstances that they have little or no control over.

MOM is also working closely with various stakeholders to educate FDWs on appropriate behaviour on their rest days, and offer activities to help FDWs spend their rest days productively.


Employers should also be protected
- Shin Min Daily News, 26 March 2012

The government announced earlier on a weekly rest day for FDWs. On the same day, there was a murder case in Geylang involving a FDW and foreign worker. If it wasn’t a murder case but a case of a FDW getting pregnant, would the government expect employers to be responsible?

A weekly rest day is no issue, but if FDWs turn irresponsible and become promiscuous, they could contract venereal diseases. Has the government thought of this? One of my friends discovered her FDW prostituting herself in Geylang during her rest day, and immediately had her repatriated the next day.

I agree that FDWs are human beings and need to rest. However, as most come from rural areas, they may not be able to resist temptations of the big city and engage in immoral affairs with foreign workers.

While the government legislates a mandatory rest day, it should also protect the interests of employers in ensuring that they do not lose their security deposit when their FDWs get into trouble. After all, it is only fair that they are responsible for their own actions.